Horton’s Systematic Theology Completes The Fix
Revised:
The Fix is now in. What started out as Sonship Theology about thirty years ago—now has its own theology, hermeneutic, practical application, defined experience, ecumenical (inclusiveness) movement, history, college, counseling organization—and now, its own systematic theology. Gospel Sanctification, as Sonship is now called, will begin to totally rewrite orthodox Christianity. It won’t be long; those who we minister to will have to be deprogrammed before we can help them, starting with convincing them that the Bible is to be taken as literal instruction from God as our authority for ministry. Not understanding GS beforehand will make any attempt to help people with the word of God—dead on arrival.
GS Theology
The movement started with a very powerful concept in the minds of its perpetrators. Supposedly, we grow spiritually by revisiting the gospel that saved us every day. Proponents were convinced (and still are) that this thesis stands alone as truth; therefore, all other propositions must bow to it. Though Covenant Theology will work with GS, New Covenant Theology was developed to bolster the Sonship thesis. NCT was developed where Sonship was also born: Westminster Seminary.
The GS Hermeneutic
A literal interpretation of Scripture will continually contradict GS. So, the proponents have changed how we read / interpret the Bible accordingly. The GS hermeneutic is an interpretive prism that will always yield results that make GS plausible. Unlike the rest of the elements (which are very contemporary), the hermeneutic (known as Biblical Theology or Redemptive-Historical hermeneutics) was borrowed from times past. It originated in Germany under the liberal teaching and writings of Johann Philipp Gabler (1753-1826), who emphasized the historical nature of the Bible over against a “dogmatic” interpretation thereof. Nearly a century later, Geerhardus Vos (1862-1949) was instrumental in taking the discipline of biblical theology in a, supposedly, more conservative direction.
Practical Application
The GS narrow approach to sanctification must be embellished and applicable to life in some way in order to be sold. This is Heart Theology, and was developed through David Powlison’s Dynamics of Biblical Change at Westminster Seminary. In 1996, two former students of Powlison articulated Heart Theology in a book entitled, “How People Change.”
Defined Experience
John Piper seeks to articulate how Sonship is experienced via Christian Hedonism. Because GS makes our works and the work of the Spirit an either / or issue, someone needed to develop a thesis that explained how the difference can be ascertained. John Piper answered the call with the development of Christian Hedonism.
Ecumenical Bent
GS now encompasses any group that agrees with its primary view of plenary monergism and the synthesis of justification and sanctification. All other disciplines are seen as secondary and irrelevant to fellowship and joint ventures. The Gospel Coalition (holding national conferences on odd years, 2011, etc.), and T4G (Together For The Gospel, holding national conferences on even years) work together to promote GS/S while promoting inclusiveness among denominations and religions.
College
The Antioch School of leadership training has GS as its foundation and basis for training. It is located in Ames, Iowa.
History
GS proponents claim a historical precedent dating back to Creation. Of course, this is laughable. Sonship, the Antioch school, TGC, T4G, NCT, CH, and HT have no historical precedent prior to 1970. Most of the notable proponents of GS are associated in some way with those who created Sonship Theology: Edmund Clowney, and primarily, Dr. John “Jack” Miller. Tim Keller and David Powlison were followers of Miller. Paul Tripp and Timothy Lane are followers of David Powlison. Jerry Bridges attributes his view of the gospel to Miller as well.
Counseling Organization
The upstart Biblical Counseling Coalition, which seeks to network other counseling organizations as well, is intimately associated with T4G and The Gospel Coalition. The who’s who of Gospel Sanctification sit on its governing board including David Powlison and Paul David Tripp.
The Complete Fix
With Michael Horton’s recent publication of “The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims On the Way” (2011), the total fix is in place. The GS machine will now begin to move forward—rewriting and re-forming orthodox Christianity. I confidently predict that Horton’s book will be widely used in seminaries nationwide. Seminary students will be pumped into the local churches with a skewered view of truth—but using all of the same terminology that was formally orthodox.
What Can Be Done?
This doctrine thrives on the fact that Christians are theologically dumbed-down. If most Christians do not know the difference between justification and sanctification (and they don’t), they are helpless against this false doctrine. If most Christians don’t realize the importance of understanding hermeneutics (and they don’t), they are even more helpless. Local churches need to start in-doctrine-ating their people.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 15: How Does GS / Sonship Work?
Once you bring people to the point where they can wrap their brain around GS, inevitably, this question follows with an incredulous expression on their faces: “How does this supposedly work in real life?” I have developed a visible chart following this post that will hopefully aid in understanding
Remember, GS / Sonship is sanctification by salvation / justification, so, like salvation, you can only implement belief and repentance to effect sanctification. Therefore, under “Gospel Narrative,” you have the “Belief” and “Repentance” circles. If sanctification is by salvation, then the Bible only addresses justification. Hence, at the top of the chart we have the “Gospel Narrative” circle. The Bible, or gospel narrative, helps us with all of the other circles. In fact, in their view, the Bible could actually be organized according to these circles. Paul Tripp has a similar chart in “How People Change.” It’s just a different way to explain the same thing, except I go beyond his primary “change” thesis and implement some of the theology as well. In chapter 6, Tripp explains this GS “big picture” hermeneutic. He specifically states in chapter six that the whole Bible can be organized according to his chart, and more than once cautions his readers that the information is not “a set of directions, but an aerial view of daily life….” Many GS counselors now use such visual tools to avoid instructing counselees with “do’s and dont’s” and “lists.” The goal is to show the counselee where they are in the gospel narrative, and thereby illuminating the gospel to a brighter level in the mind of the counselee. Tripp claims that his model (a redemptive-historical model) is derived from the book of Jeremiah; but of course, that’s ridiculous.
We will examine the belief leg first and then move to the repentance leg in explaining how these two effect change. Supposedly. Reading the gospel narrative with, as John Piper says, “an eye toward the cross,” we begin to “treasure” (see Treasure circle) Christ and the gospel more and more which contributes to the endgame (the New Obedience circle). Note the Law Positive circle: all of the commands in the Bible are to be seen as what Christ fulfilled for us—a bunch of laws that we could never keep anyway; so instead of seeing them as laws to be obeyed, or instruction, we are to see them as a way to cultivate thankfulness for the works of Christ, “not anything we do.” Therefore, one of the pillars of faith concerning the gospel narrative is its documentation of all of the laws that Christ obeyed for us.
Repentance is the major component of GS. Almost everything is geared towards removing idols from the heart (anything we love more than Christ). As we remove idols from our heart through confession, the void is filled by Christ which results in New Obedience (HPC p.28). Therefore, all of life is geared toward a warfare with idols of the heart. All circumstances are seen as an opportunity to reveal heart idols through our responses (see Response to Circumstances circle). In “How people Change,” it’s the “Heat” circle on Tripp’s chart. Idols of the heart produce evil desires, i.e., anything we love more than Christ; so, an examination of the desires can reveal what the idol is that is causing the sin. This is done through asking ourselves questions that help determine what we loved / wanted / desired more than Christ (see Interpretive Questions circle). David Powlison and Paul Tripp refer to these as “X-ray questions” (HPC p. 163).
“Law Negative” has to do with using Scripture as law, and not gospel / Spirit. The Bible is used for the purpose of (as Michael Horton states it speaking of biblical imperatives): “….drive[ing] us to despair of self righteousness.” GS counselors will often do this, especially during redemptive church discipline. Supposedly, it reveals the folly of trying to obey the law / Scriptural imperatives. Paul Tripp calls such an effort on the part of the believer, “Christless activism.” So it also serves in revealing idols of self righteousness as well. The goal of Law Negative is to bring the counselee to the point where, as Bill Baldwin conveys it—the counselee says, “’I cannot keep it! Someone must do it for me!’”
Once idols are identified and the desires that they produce (by the way, Scripture says sinful desires come from the flesh, not the heart), they can be repented of and replaced with a contrary desire produced by the gospel narrative. This whole process is called “deep repentance,” and replacing the sinful desire with a desire spawned by the gospel narrative is called the “reorientation of desires / heart.” By contemplating the gospel and partaking in deep repentance, we are strengthened to make two primary facilitators of change possible: new desires, and in some veins of GS, “yielding.” Many in the GS movement, like John Piper, believe that we are completely driven by desire. So, by changing the desires—you change the behavior. Of course, this is eerily similar to Freudian Depth Psychology. Others believe that the flesh and the Spirit are figurative realms, and at any moment we yield to one or the other. They also make a distinction between the Spirit and the law—the law brings death like the flesh realm, and the Spirit brings life. Of course, this is eerily similar to Gnosticism.
This all results in the filling of Christ, which results in “New Obedience,” which is always earmarked by experiencing obedience as a “mere natural flow” accompanied by joy.
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 14: GS / Sonship’s Double Imputation as the Only True Gospel
There seems to be discussion in the GS camp concerning the importance of “double imputation” verses “passive imputation” and its relevance to the gospel. The debate is articulated well by Steve Lehrer and Geoff Volker here: http://goo.gl/UxyaX .
I decided to post on this because I think it is an important element of their doctrine to be understood, and you will see why further along, but let’s lay some groundwork first. Here is Lehrer’s definitions of the terms that the debate is comprised of:
Active (or Preceptive) Obedience: The perfect obedience of Jesus Christ to the Mosaic Law.
Passive (or Penal) obedience: Christ’s sacrificial death by which He paid the penalty for the sins of the elect.
Imputation: Getting something that you did not earn. Imputation, rather abstractly, describes how all that Jesus accomplished for us gets to us. So, one might say that imputation communicates that all that Jesus did on the cross is placed or wired into your “spiritual bank account” when you believe.
Righteousness: Acceptance with God. Righteousness, in the context of salvation, is whatever it is that God requires in order to be accepted by Him.
Lehrer then explains the crux of the argument:
“Before we can begin to discuss the imputation of the active obedience of Christ, we must consider Christ’s passive obedience. The great reformed theologian Louis Berkhof believes that the passive obedience of Jesus Christ imputed to the believer has limitations as to what it does for the believer:
‘…if He (Christ) had merely paid the penalty (for the believer), without meeting the original demands of the law (for the believer), He would have left man in the position of Adam before the fall, still confronted with the task of obtaining eternal life in the way of obedience. By His active obedience, however, He carried His people beyond that point and gave them a claim to everlasting life.’
If only the passive obedience of Christ is imputed to the believer, according to Berkhof, this would not give him eternal life. He would have to obey God perfectly and earn eternal life on His own. The man who only has the passive obedience of Christ imputed to him would be in a spiritual Switzerland— stuck in neutral. Is the distinguished Louis Berkhof right? We don’t think so.”
And I’m not taking sides because I have a lot more to learn about Covenant Theology, which Lehrer thinks is ground zero for this debate. Neither I’m I prepared to accept his explanation of Covenant Theology as stated in this article. As Lehrer says, he believes the so-called passive obedience of Christ imputed to the believer is all that is necessary. However, I do think “passive” is a strange term indeed for Christ’s obedience to the cross because it was far from being a passive affair. Nevertheless, the crux of the matter seems to be whether or not Christ had to fulfill the original covenant broken by Adam (the Covenant of Works in Covenant Theology) via living a perfect life while here in the flesh, and in addition to paying the penalty for sin as well. Hence, double imputation. Lehrer says no, and you can read his lengthy argument via the link cited.
Apparently, the GS / Sonship movement is split concerning this issue, and he mentions Wayne Grudem as one who seems to hold to the double imputation view. But something is conspicuously missing here for I would imagine neither side is saying that one must believe in double imputation in order to profess a true gospel. Or are they? What’s conspicuously missing in Lehrer’s discussion is the practical implication for sanctification. If Christ died to pay the penalty of sin (the imputation of His so-called passive obedience), and lived to fulfill the covenant (the imputation of His active obedience) that God made with Adam, does that mean fulfilled works / obedience are also imputed to us, and thereby relinquishing our need / responsibility to perform?
Furthermore, if we believe we must work / obey in sanctification, could that be seen as an attempt to replace the works of Christ already imputed to us? Yes. In fact, when many proponents of GS refer to “the imputed active obedience of Christ,” this is exactly what they are talking about. Supposedly, righteousness, the fulfillment of the Works Covenant (if they are GS Covenant Theology types), and not only a substitution for the penalty of sin, but Christ’s substitution for our works as well would be imputed to us—eliminating any responsibility on our part to perform works. Before I became privy to this argument, I couldn’t see how Covenant Theology could be consistent with GS/ Sonship, but now I see the possibility and stand corrected accordingly.
But, in fact, does Lehrer avoid any discussion of how this debate effects our role in sanctification because the synthesis of justification and sanctification is assumed in these circles? I Don’t know, but the belief that double imputation fleshes itself out in sanctification, and is efficacious for the presentation of a true gospel is defiantly a reality in the movement. It is sometimes referred to as monergistic substitutionary sanctification, ie., Christ’s death (passive obedience) was not only a substitution for the penalty of sin, but his life fulfilled the Works Covenant and is also a substitution for any works that would be required by us in sanctification / regeneration, even for different purposes than earning salvation (which should be assumed since justification is a onetime act / declaration by God). There are probably some in the movement that think synergism in sanctification is unfortunate error, but most of the more prominent leaders in the movement such as Michael Horton believe it is a false gospel that results in the loss of justification (Christless Christianity p. 62).
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 13: Dr. John Street Joins the Noun Coalition
Just yesterday, when I was introduced to the new gospel upstart organization in our everything gospel church culture, I was verbless. Somebody sent me a link to the upstart’s Facebook page (the “Biblical Counseling Coalition”) which posted this statement: “Sanctification is the art of getting used to our full salvation: justification, regeneration, redemption, reconciliation.”
Rush Limbaugh often says “Words mean things,” but [do] they really? After all, I did some investigation and this new coalition is overseen by the spiritual brain-trust of our day. So, when the apostle Paul described sanctification as “abstain[ing]” (1Thess 4:3), “running” by obedience (Gal 5:7), also through obedience: “work[ing] out….with fear and trembling” (Phil 2:12), beating our bodies into subjection, discipline, running a race, and for a prize (1Cor 9:24-27); surely, we peasants of this contemporary dark age must be misunderstanding him because that’s a lot of verb-iage. Since Michael Horton says the purpose of corporate worship is for reviving our valley of dead bones by contemplating the gospel, should we forget all that stuff in Hebrews about encouraging each other unto good works? Should we rather relax and say, “Hey bro, how are you coming along in the art of getting use to you salvation?”
Inquiring minds, what’s left of them, want to know. Because one of the board members of this coalition is David Powlison, we could have a clue. In an interview with Nine Marks, Powlison said that the church forgets stuff, but when it is rediscovered by CCEF’s Research and Development Dept., it has to be reevaluated in a contemporary historical context. Hmmmm. Powlison also believes that a thorough search must be made of all past and present philosophies, literature, history, etc., just in case God has shown other people stuff that he hasn’t shown the church, or has shown the church in the past, but was forgotten, because the church forgets stuff. At this years TGC (The Gospel Coalition) 2011 conference, Powlison will be conducting a seminar on “Recent Advancements in Biblical Counseling.” So, for all of you that draw propositional truth from interpreting the verb, noun, subject, preposition, etc. structure of sentences in the Bible, you may not want to miss that seminar if you really want to able to take the word and help people.
Yet another clue may come from another board member of the BCC, Paul David Tripp. He believes that biblical verbs must be seen in their “gospel context.” In other words, all verbs in the Bible pertain to Jesus. In “How People Change,” Tripp says that the art of getting use to our sanctification is “resting and feeding” on Christ. In the same book, Tripp also writes, like Michael Horton in “Christless Christianity” (or, “Verbal Christianity”), that Christians are dead, and as Tripp states it in HPC: “When you are dead, you can’t do anything.” Tripp also mentions in the same book that Christ is not a cognitive concept that we apply to life, but he is a “person.” Got that? No cognitive concepts, just the personal pronoun.
But another board member that caught my eye on the list was Dr. John D. Street who has actually counseled me in the past. I have been reluctant to write in regard to him previously because I am privy to the fact that he used to employ lots of verbs in counseling that applied to the counselee, and I didn’t want to get him into trouble. In fact, I was a perfect candidate for this new form of counseling when I came to him many years ago. I remember coming to one of our appointments and proudly proclaiming: “I have read my Bible and prayed for—four hours!” Now how do you like that for contemplative spirituality?! His answer? “I’m not going to tell you not to do that, but the power is in the doing.” Ouch! I can just imagine the look of horrific angst on Powlison’s face.
Back then, I think Street might have got this idea from the old way of interpreting the Bible. “But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.” “But” is a coordinating conjunction which indicates contrast in this sentance; so being interpreted, don’t do the previous verses—hearing only, and not doing. But that exact contrast that James warns us of is the mantra of the new biblical counseling movement. I was recently sent a webinar conducted by a NANC Fellow who was clearly propagating a hearing only model of change that left the results up to being “amazed by the gospel.” Apparently, James didn’t get the memo. He presents hearing and doing as two components that work together to bring about—at the very least, blessings. The blessings occur where? Well, if we answer that question by finding the preposition, the blessings are “in” the “doing.” Also note that James does not present the gospel as the primary motivator, but rather blessings.
There is no misunderstanding about how this false approach to counseling fleshes itself out in real life. I was a longtime member and former elder at Clearcreek Chapel, the church John Street founded in Springboro, Ohio. The church is presently endorsed by both CCEF and NANC, and is a NANC training center. Two members on the upstart BCC board, Robert Jones and Paul Tripp, speak there often. My information regarding this doctrine includes hundreds of hours of discussion with the Clearcreek elders, who again, are highly respected in GS / Sonship circles. The pastor of the church, Russ Kennedy, has said, “Any separation of justification and sanctification is an abomination.” Obviously, this can only leave sanctification by justification as the dynamic for change. This can also be seen in the statement regarding sanctification as something we “get used to” as opposed to what the apostle Paul taught. Though the movement is hideously covert, if one pays attention, their noun-iage exposes them from time to time.
The former Clearcreek elder who was in charge of counseling at Clearcreek once announced from the pulpit (at Clearcreek) that he learned to read his Bible in “a whole new way” from Chad Bresson, Clearcreek elder and author of “Vossed World,” a blog that promotes the belief that the Spirit only illuminates the word of God in a gospel context. Bresson also believes the postmodern concept that because truth is in a person, it cannot be propositional or cognitive / objective, which is why the Bible is strictly a narrative and not for instruction. Presumably, this is why Dan Turner, another elder / counselor at Clearcreek, sometimes (if not all the time) draws diagrams of people’s lives and shows them where they are at in the diagram / picture / gospel narrative as a way of avoiding an instructive paradigm. I once heard Turner explain how a marriage was miraculously transformed before his eyes after showing them the glory of the gospel from the Scriptures. Turner also told me that I was like the Pharisees because I believed that Scripture should often be used to determine objective truth. No surprise then that the elders at Clearcreek were never heard (while I was there) saying, “How do we do that?” But were rather heard saying—often, “What does that look like.” In fact, we were taught that the “how” word was indicative of a heart problem, and the use of that word in a question to an elder resulted in a repeating of the word (how) back to the inquisitor in question form to correct the parishioner.
Will the BBC be able to help people with a counseling model based solely on nouns? I doubt it. Will John Street get kicked-off the BCC board for taking James literally? Or has he repented of such Phariseeism? Perhaps he now says: “I’m not going to tell you not to obey, but the power is in the contemplation.” I hope he hasn’t, but if not, what does that look like? “[Run] John, [run]!”
paul
“The ‘Gospel’ Coalition” Series, Part 10: How Can Something Be “New” if it’s Not Different?
Advocates of GS/Sonship that protest my writings must ask themselves the following: what is it, exactly, that the propagators of GS/Sonship say is so different? On the one hand, people write me and deny my representations. On the other hand, what then are the differences that the proponents themselves describe as “A radical departure” (Russ Kennedy, director of a NANC training center in Dayton OH), a “Modern ‘Reformation’” (the name of Horton’s magazine publication), different from the “vast majority” of “professing” Christians (Tullian T.), different from “hordes” of other Christians (Paul David Tripp), a “New” Calvinism? What’s “new” about it? If my proposed differences are incorrect–then what are they exactly? The former director of the aforementioned NANC counseling center in Dayton OH said that the GS (of course, he didn’t use that label) hermeneutic was “a whole new way of reading the Bible.”
Let me ask: how can someone choose a church to attend when they don’t even know how the pastor of that church “reads his Bible”? Sure, who is going to object to constantly hearing about who Christ is and what he did throughout the Old and New Testaments? Nobody, unless they stop and think about it. Christ was constantly annoyed by people who wanted to focus on other things besides his commands and instruction (Luke 11:27,28). There are two distinct ways of interpreting our Bibles in this day that will yield different results—the GS proponents themselves say they have a different way of interpreting the Bible. Is this not a major issue? How many Christians know the difference between the Redemptive-Historical hermeneutic and the Grammatical-Historical hermeneutic?—No Christian that I have ever asked; and moreover, how many attending this year’s TGC conference even know? However, have no fear; apparently, both sides are going to be presented. Ya, right.
I have a better idea. One of the seventy teachers that are going to be there should make a chart with old Calvinism on the left, and New Calvinism on the right to help explain why it is “new.” List theological elements on the far left and the differences between the two can be noted in the short descriptions under each new/old heading. My proposed chart follows. Please feel free to print it and take it to the conference with you. It is not meant to be comprehensive or indicative of what ALL GS proponents believe, but merely an instrument to provoke discussion. However, the chart does indicate my conviction that the two are only similar on the election issue.
paul
Paul's Passing Thoughts 
leave a comment